Denigrating science to inflate the religious ego

It's a popular thing in some conservative circles (and this forum of late) to stand up for religion against the terrible onslaught of fanatical scientific atheism that's single-handily destroying Western Civilization. Oh dear.

While the merits of this are still to be seen, what's most intriguing to me are the ways in which people go about counter-acting this. Science is accused of being arrogant, of not being able to explain how we got here, and not being able to explain why we exist.

It's my challenge that all 3 of these are absurd.

To the first, science is actually the most humble discourse humans have ever attempted to understand "reality" - and certainly far more so than religion. Consider: science never says it has the final answer. It is always open to new evidence and contemplation of things which were heretofore considered ludicrous. Not only that, but it is based upon observing what can be perceived, in a careful and verifiable way.

Contrast this to religion, which inevitably claims final and complete knowledge. It is extraordinarily reactionary against anything that contradicts its dogma, and its methods are almost entirely subjective, relying on what's occurring in the internal nervous system of the individual, whether from a true shaman or a dishonest epileptic rabbi. The problem with this is that it is impossible to communicate what was experienced, as nothing is external to be observed.

To the second, while science cannot yet answer that question, it is collecting information and forming hypotheses, until enough evidence is gathered to justify a conclusion. That's called humbleness.

You know what isn't humble?

Declaring: "God made the universe in seven days, the Sun orbits the Earth, and if you don't agree, prepare to get toasted."

Now, on to the last point. It's here that the criticism is true: science can't explain why we exist. However, why I think this charge is absurd is because nothing else can either. Sure, you can invent all sorts of reasons/explanations/bullshit, collect them in a holy book, and off you go; but that doesn't make it true.

What's particularly funny is that the people who do that call others arrogant!

Raging again, Wild? Upset? Victimized by those insane religious zealots? You have no grasp of what religion is. Other than your idea of what it can be at its worst. Consider your own state, and contrast it with the placid, calm, sane state of the spiritual adept. Which do you consider generally more benign, more preferable?

The point isn't that science itself is too imperfect for us to heed. Science is also staffed by people - potentially corruptible people - and it also requires funding from sources who may desire tailored results to suit their non-science, political aims. Just like the churches, there is no reason the institution of science can't get and hasn't gotten infiltrated by ideologues who keep reality second and the agenda first.

Irritated again, crow? Angry? Attacked by those brutal materialist technicians?You have no grasp of what science is. Other than your idea of what it can be at its worst.Consider your own state, and contrast it to the careful, humble, objective state of the scientific mind.Which do you consider generally more accurate, more truthful?

Exactly, Scourge. Science suffers from the same thing the atheistic mind does. A lack of reverence for Truth. It makes up its own, as it goes (un)happily down the road to ruin. It may be time to differentiate between 'religion' and 'metaphysics'. There are some truly insane religious types out there, just as there are scientists. The metaphysicist, on the other hand, begins from a position of humility. If he didn't, he would not be a metaphysicist.

Metaphysics observes and is awed-by. Religion is capable of exactly the same approach. It is, as usual, people, and their slippery egos that muddies the waters.

If science were capable of both humility and reverence, it would be ideal. But it is not.

Irritated again, crow? Angry? Attacked by those brutal materialist technicians?You have no grasp of what science is. Other than your idea of what it can be at its worst.Consider your own state, and contrast it to the careful, humble, objective state of the scientific mind.Which do you consider generally more accurate, more truthful?

Be warned, Wild. Get back to your little spot on DM. This is not your area, and your attitude is not helpful, or permissible. You may discuss. You may not incite hostility and discord.

Irritated again, crow? Angry? Attacked by those brutal materialist technicians?You have no grasp of what science is. Other than your idea of what it can be at its worst.Consider your own state, and contrast it to the careful, humble, objective state of the scientific mind.Which do you consider generally more accurate, more truthful?

Be warned, Wild. Get back to your little spot on DM. This is not your area, and your attitude is not helpful, or permissible. You may discuss. You may not incite hostility and discord.

You know what crow? This site is deathmetal.org, not amerika.org nor crowslittledictatorship.org. That you constantly belittle/insult all the contributors whom you don't agree with, then turn around and lecture everyone on civility is fucking disgusting.

I was willing to defend you awhile back, but now it's completely absurd. Go ban me like Humanicide.

Nothing would please me more. Nobody needs you. The site is expressly about transcendence. And you don't get it. Transcendence from screaming infant to realized man, via the unlikely mediums of deathmetal and nihilism. So long.

You are right. Unrealized people do unreasonable things. Warfare is always more appealing to those, than cooperation. I've often tried, for example, to cooperate with Christians. But they, on the whole, will have none of it. Dogma on either side, is the undoing of what might have been.

Integration is not helpful I think. When the two disciplines overlap, you get people looking for cosmic tooling marks from God's CNC. Answering the questions of how live in this world cannot be answered by facts, they must be made on the basis of faith. Faith and values.

In order to even have faith, somebody, sometime, must have actually had to know what he was talking about. The truth can be known, but historically, not by very many. Faith comes from the experience of those few; if it didn't, then it would be no more than fantasy/superstition.

Integration is not helpful I think. When the two disciplines overlap, you get people looking for cosmic tooling marks from God's CNC. Answering the questions of how live in this world cannot be answered by facts, they must be made on the basis of faith. Faith and values.

Sorry, i expressed myself badly. The integration i was talking about is a kind of mutual respect, without bashing one another. Real integration of both would be horrendous. Something in the lines of the tom cruise's sect.